I, too, had the Stylus 1. After about 300 clicks, a fresh battery started to deplete after only 20 or so exposures and the control wheel started to bind. Back it went for a refund. I would have replaced it, but I saw rumors of the Stylus 1s, then unnamed. The rumor had the right image for the camera, as it matched the one here. No clam-shell lens cover, which I thought felt flimsy, waiting for a clumsy move to puncture and render the camera inoperable.
I really liked using it. Great compliment to my OMD system; almost pocketable with respectable image quality. The improvements stated here will be worth the wait until a similar product is introduced in the USA.
Scott Eaton: I'm comparing the studio samples of XT-1 -vs- the entry level Canon and Nikon offerings, and would like to know why everybody is raving about the image quality?
Entire swaths of color detail are missing in the XT-1, edges of detailed objects look like they are being over-processed with grain reduction techniques, and the image quality is mushy, non-distinct, and looks synthetic. While the XT-1 does a good job with noise reduction, it looks no different than Nikon / Canon sensors with luminance reduction cranked to some absurd levels in post.
DPR can rave about skin tones all they want. Pretty much all skin tones I'm looking at are identical because of the low color sensitivity of the sensor. What ever attraction this camera has is likely due to the name on the front, or some other intangible nostalgia.
I'm wondering how the in-camera processing is set. I have an OMD EM1 and out of the box the jpgs, and RAWS interpreted from the jpgs settings via LR were really degraded. I set turned off all in-camera noise reduction and the image quality was vastly improved. Is the same thing going on here with the XT-1?
LeitzKameraAktion: Nick Ut's famous 1972 Vietnam image of naked 9 year old Kim Phuc running down a road, after being burned by Napalm, looks far more dramatic and scary when seen in its familiar cropped version, which eliminates almost half the right side of the image. The full image lacks the intensity and concentration of the cropped version, because the figures on the right seem uninterested and unconcerned about the drama taking place just ahead of them. Cropping the image focuses one's attention on the traumatised children, and their anguished expressions. For me. Contreras' manipulation was done in much the same spirit; to eliminate distracting detail in order to focus one's attention on the essentials. While the end result might not be literally accurate, it does not falsify the reality or authenticity of what's being depicted - the core-truth if you like. Suppose Contreras had physically removed the video camera BEFORE taking his shot; how is that morally different to doing it electronically?
Cropping is often essential to fit the layout. Sometimes the background needs to be expanded to make the picture fit the frame.
For me Nikon has offered ever greater disappointments. I bought a 5200 ten months ago and now it's obsolete. But, I bought a 5300 along with the 18-140. The first lens could not focus on distant subjects at 18mm. The second and third copies had horrible fall off toward the left side of the frame. Focus was inconsistent, even on a tripod, with VR off. Exposure was inconsistent, too, varying as much as 2/3 stops on the same subject during a portrait series. I should have know better; the demo camera at the PhotoPlus trade show performed the same way. When I told the rep that the camera wasn't making consistent exposures, he said it was the lighting--tungsten theatrical lights. Are these people for real?
I wrote to tech support about the performance problems. Basically, I was told to return the equipment to Nikon for evaluation. You bet I returned it: to the dealer for a refund.
I bought my first Nikon in 1974 and it's been down hill ever since. I'm trying another brand.
Don't criticize Adobe for creating a way to protect its investment. They employ an army of coders to build Photoshop and at one time PS was the most pirated software on the internet. Software as complex and powerful as PS is not free, and Adobe is entitled to make a profit, especially if it supplying tools that others use to make a profit. Hence the Creative Cloud business model.
As a professional user of Photoshop, I have always purchased the upgrades as they were released. I also use some of the other tools available from Creative Cloud, so the cost of the subscription is really a bargain, especially when compared with the prior prices of boxed versions. It's the cost of doing business.
Those users who would select less capable software, mostly out of spite, are giving up a competitive advantage.
108: Very nice camera, nice samples. Now the american Amazon retail price new is 546.95 usd, whereas on Amazon germany and france it sells for euros 561. At today conversion rate ( 1.35 dollar for 1 euro ), that puts the" european" 7800 at 757,35 usd equivalent. Given all the talk about free trade and fair treatment to all nations, anyone can explain to me this discrepancy ? Assuming some kind of adjustment for whatever economic/standard of living reason, let's say a 1.15 conversion rate to be nice, that's still 15% more than US retail price. What are we european customers ? Idiots to be milked dry by austerity measures while our american counterparts continue enjoying better prices for the same goods paid with paper printed at will by the FED ?
VAT is 19% in the EU, hence the price difference. Which makes the base price lower.
I'm not quite sure why reviewers are using ACR 7.4 beta. I have had the camera for about a week and would like to use ACR and Lightroom. I'm exporting RAW from Nikon View NX2 as 16bit TIFs with great success and stunning results, but dislike the inconvenience of the extra step before ACR. I searched Adobe Labs website and could no indication that ACR 7.4 release candidate or Lightroom 4.4 release candidate supports the D7100. Obviously, it reads the files, but are the results optimized for this camera? Please let us know if this is the case. Thanks.
Great. Today's top of the line pro cameras can crank out thousands of tack-sharp, perfectly exposed images. But, what's the percentage of keepers?
When I started as a stringer for AP in Boston, I brought in 4 rolls from the assignment. The editor flipped: "I don't want to look through 120 images to pick one," he screamed. "If you can't get it on one roll, I don't want to see it." I don't think that has changed with digital, though it's easier to see the images on a monitor than squinting at negatives on a light box.
Over-shooting doesn't guarantee the font page shot. Sports and news photography requires pre-visualizing and anticipating the moment. How else did Catrier-Bresson get those great images with a manual film advance Leica? Though I guess that could be changing with high frame rate, high resolution video capture--if you have time to go through all those pictures.
I don't care what others say. I bet the new processor solves the moire problem. Look at the results at normal viewing distance--that's what counts. I pre-ordered mine yesterday from BH.
Ivan Azzopardi: I dont think about real or fake as i do not agree with photo editing software unless it is traceable.Some people say it is creativity but i still dont agree. Thats what comes out you cannot determine real from fake not even in competitions magazines and even newspapers. Photography is ruined with photo editing software. Good luck digital artists !!
All photography is fake. It's a two dimensional rendering of three dimensional objects in a moment of time. Its verisimilitude has seduced viewers since it was invented.
Others in this thread asked how does Sternfeld's images differ from the average snap shooter? Why is a dull, gone-to-seed urban image art? A baby in a laundry basket--why is that art? Cut-off the mother's head could be just sloppy photography; had I made the shot I would have included the mom. The girl in slippers and jump rope in cheesey pose, perhaps this is a social comment; but is it art? Why are these images centered? The self-appointed "experts" declare a body of work "art," and their visually illiterate sycophants concur. The rest of us puzzle and wonder what is the photographer seeing that we should see? In photography, documentary can be mistaken for art. If an image informs, but does not uplift can it be art? Wegee's gritty news pictures 80 years later put on the wall get called art. Zoe Strauss's recent show at the Phily Art Museum was a disturbing document that left me depressed; it wasn't art for me. Compare these images to those by Henri Cartier-Bresson and Elliot Erwitt.
This whole image integrity thing is a bunch of BS. A photo is an opinion, not the truth. It's a 2-dimensional, cropped impression of a moment in time/space. How photos can be conflated with truth is beyond me. It's no different than the reporter who edits a long quote to fit the space. And, what about the moment before or after the published picture was made? What about the small crowd that can appear large if the image is cropped from the top in camera? What about the man crying in one frame and laughing in the next? Which is "true." There isn't a photo on earth that does not need some processing to prepare it for publication. Oh, and publication? What does the 65 line screen on cheap news print do to the dynamic range of an image? Hey, people, get real.
People who haven't used the Nikon 1 system shouldn't comment on the camera. Having just returned from a week in Istanbul, I found the camera a worthy substitute for my D300. IQ: I placed an image in a 2013 12" x 12" calender; so we see the future of camera technology that defies physics. I have used cameras with only three controls: aperture, shutter speed and focus. I carried a hand-held light meter. They used film, which I had to process if I wanted any kind of quality. The 1 series can be used without the fancy auto settings Nikon provides the point and shooters, and without custom settings, buried in endless menus. OK, for ISO adjustment, there's a trip to the menu. But if you leave the ISO the last function accessed, it's there up front for the next time. If the auto ISO selection is too slow, use manual. No big deal. Here's a link to my images, a quick edit of the 1750 I made. File names beginning with HG were made on a Nikon D60: http://www.jimkphotographics.com/istanbul2012/
I use LR3, Photoshop CS5 and Expression Media, in a professional environment. EM can render previews in thumbnail view in real time and compare up to six images at a time, with individual or grouped pan and zoom--a far better way to compare similar shots, like in a portrait sitting. But the biggest disappointment is Lightroom's inability to open multiple files, as EM can do. No need to cram your whole catalog into one file. EM can easily copy/cut and paste between open databases and search among open catalogs. For my workflow, I make selections in EM and edit in LR. On to Photoshop for additional retouching, HDR and compositing. There is no killer app.
Roger confirms my intuition on equipment build quality--a "broad" range of tolerance. I went through a quest with two copies of a Nikkor 16-85 zoom. I told tech support that images were "soft" at short focal lengths and with distant subjects the lens never hit the infinity mark. They looked at my samples and said they were within tolerance. I disagreed and they serviced the lenses without improvement. I sent them back with the camera body, a D300, again failure. So, I took equipment to the Nikon repair station in Melville, NY and pleaded my case to the techie. I even shot a series of images of the Nikon headquarters to demonstrate the problem. When the equipment was returned, lo-and-behold, the lenses were sharp. I don't know what repair was performed. As I understand it, a lens calibration with the camera is only good for one focal length; useless on a zoom. Oh, and the lenses still do not hit the infinity mark on distant subjects and short focal lengths. So much for zone focus.
I handled the X10 at the Photoplus Expo last weekend. It was very impressive. Bright viewfinder, instant shutter response, though it took a couple of tries to get the feel for the auto focus. I could take a decent shot of the reps at the booth. I did think the menu system was a little counter intuitive, but it's a learning curve with the instruction manual to figure it out. I also handled the X100 and both cameras reminded me of my first 35mm camera, a Kodak Range Finder, ca. 1960, only smaller, with a nicer viewfinder.
I do think the 4x zoom is a little on the short side for my style. I was more interested in the Nikon V1, with the kit lenses from 28-80 and 80-300. Image samples posted else where on this site show that Fuji will have to work hard to equal the Nikon. But, the samples I've seen from the X100 are incredible. Again, it's a style of photography that the Fuji cameras are aimed. My impression is that it has been well-done.